Jonathan Weisman joins New York Times

Jonathan Weisman is resigning as Wall Street Journal political correspondent to cover Congress for the New York Times. “He brings a rich, relevant background to the beat, having previously covered not only the Obama White House and the Hill, but Afghanistan, energy policy, the economy and presidential politics, too,” says the memo (posted below) announcing his appointment.

We’re happy that Jonathan Weisman, now a Wall Street Journal political correspondent, will be joining us next month to cover Congress alongside Robert Pear and Jennifer Steinhauer.

Jonathan is an energetic, enterprising reporter whose love of journalism is infectious, as Mike Shear, Peter Baker and other of his former colleagues will tell you. He breaks news (as with the tax problems of Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle) and produces good yarns too (as with his recent front-page piece on Mitt Romney’s changing positions). He brings a rich, relevant background to the beat, having previously covered not only the Obama White House and the Hill, but Afghanistan, energy policy, the economy and presidential politics, too.

Jonathan studied African history and journalism at Northwestern before joining the Peace Corps, in Guinea Bissau and the Philippines, and then starting a journalism career that has included time at Education Week, CQ, USA Today and The Washington Post. He lives in Washington with his wife, Susan Lund, and two children, and he recently completed work on his first novel, a romance set in Portugal’s colonial wars in Africa. He’ll start work Jan. 3.

He becomes a member of an already stellar Capitol Hill team. Jennifer and Robert have done excellent work on every big story of the last year and produced lots of little gems along the way, as well. They have been doing double duty since Carl left the Hill. We are grateful to them and look forward to the great work they and Jonathan will do now that our Capitol Hill bureau is finally back at full staff.

David, Carl & Rebecca

———

In a 2003 letter to Romenesko, Weisman makes a “remarkable admission about how the White House news operation cooks quotes — and how the press plays along.”

Calendar

Archive

Archive

4 comments

Fred said: December 9, 20115:04 pm

During my time at the WSJ, long ago in the 60s through 80s, the pirating between the Journal and the Times pretty much balanced out over extended periods. It’s my impression that during the Murdoch-WSJ years the flow has mostly been one way: good people fleeing Murdoch. Is that true? Of course a lot of WSJ talent has moved elsewhere, esp to Bloomberg, but has Murdoch’s WSJ been able to pick off talent from other top publications, like the Journal of old was so good at doing?

R Thomas Berner said: December 11, 20113:36 am

I have much the same question because I under the impression as a reader of both papers that since Murdoch took over, the talent steal has been one way: to the Times and away from the WSJ.

Marty said: December 11, 201110:27 pm

It pains me to say this, but the WSJ’s news columns have taken a subtle but noticeable right-ward slant in the last year or so. The story mix and structure and, particularly, the headlines.

Any self-respecting political writer would want to out from under that.

stefan said: December 12, 201112:03 pm

could it be that the flow of talent from the WSJ DC bureau is reflective of management and personality issues at the DC bureau? It predates murdoch